Laura Zeigen

Systems & Web Development Librarian

Oregon Health & Science University Library

User Interface Needs in the OPAC: A Case Study in

Usability Testing from OHSU

April 27 - 30, 2008

Overview

Overview of 1-1 usability testing

Test goals and design

Subject recruitment

Gaps between user understanding and OPAC interface

Addressing these gaps

Further testing

Resources on usability testing

Why conduct usability testing?

It can take a lot of staff time

It is almost always a challenge to recruit subjects*

Sometimes the results might not be what you want to hear or things you actually cannot change at this time.

So…why do it?

* Although, according to Jakob Nielsen (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html) , you only need 5-8 people to adequately test.

Why conduct usability testing?

Allows you to see first-hand how people are searching and uncovers searching behaviors

Usability testing gives you more data so you can design your interfaces and systems to better meet user searching needs

How can we best utilize new technologies (tagging, other Web 2.0) if we don’t know how they might be useful to our users?

Marketing opportunity!

Figuring out how and whom to test

For us, it had been at least 3 years

Previous methodologies– Card-sorting– Screen capture of tasks (Camtasia)

Paper Prototyping, by Carolyn Snyder

Hybrid of 1-1 testing and what usability.gov site calls “contextual interview”

Concerns if you are testing the “right” subjects– Per Steven Krug, grabbing someone in the hall is

better than no feedback at all!

Test goalsDo our patrons understand how to do basic functions using our main page and OPAC?

Does the layout and information architecture of our main page and OPAC make sense to our patrons?

Assumptions:– Most of what we had would make sense to

people, except some of the labelling.

Survey and other recruitment

Survey – 200 responses– SurveyMonkey– Linked from top Web and OPAC pages– Used to obtain initial information and for recruitment

Additional subject recruitment efforts– Campus newsletter (email and web site)– Flyers all over– Table-tent flyers– Bookmarks at circ desk, new employee orientation– Contacts across campus

Highlights from usability surveyPeople like the content we provide

People do not like the layers of navigation they have to go through to gain access to or peruse these resources.

Too many links, clutter on top page and OPAC.

Users would like us to fix the existing interface first before introducing any “new and improved” technology such as RSS or podcasts.

Mental model patrons have

Helpful librarians

Study space

Getting stuff fromother libraries

Trying to wadethrough libraryWeb site andcatalog to gainaccess to desired

Trying to wade through library Web site and catalog to gain access to desired articles and other materials

Test designCross-departmental team helped develop tasksRecording devices?Anonymized results, but noted status (student, faculty, department, etc.)Tasks or questions relevant to OPAC http://catalogs.ohsu.edu– How would you find a particular journal?– How would you request a book from the Old Library?– What would you do if the library didn’t have the item

you wanted?– How do you connect to full-text of your desired article?

Subjects testedStaff – 15

Students – 11

– Additional 7 med students in person

– Email feedback from 8 additional med students

Clinicians - 3

Researchers – 4

Other faculty/instructors – 3

Member of public (ret. prof) – 1

Usability testing - FindingsSimilar findings to survey

They love us in person

Some of our resources (History of Medicine, Digital Resources Library) delight and inspire them

Some of our resources (journals access, OPAC, WebBridge) frustrate them to no end

Usability testing – Findings Many gaps between user understanding of their searches and how we have the OPAC set up.

No one person had a complete understanding of what we could offer with all these tasks.

People who understood our systems best (about 5 out of the 37) all had had some experience working in libraries or heavily doing research in libraries.

They think they are searching well, but they are confusing things and in the process missing a lot.

Question 1 and 2 – How do people look for journals?

Confusion between journals, ejournals, other labeling on top page

Desire to have search function from top page

Layers of the OPAC unclear

Confusing interface at various steps in process– Display of print and electronic confusing– Print or electronic? Electronic favored – Which years? – Desire for explicit links (“Available online”)

Question 1 and 2

Non-chronological display of volumes confusing

Confusion about what we can or cannot provide (mental model)– “Google has it and you don’t”– “Why can’t I click on the volume?”

“If I can click on it, it must be the thing”

They have their own systems we know nothing about.

Multiple listings of items extremely frustrating

Pediatrics example

Question 3 – Finding books

Easily got into catalog to do a title search, but not sure they would have known where to go (“Catalog”) without prompting.

Completely stuck on what to do next if said was in Old Library.– Some would go to Old Library– Some thought they had to come into Library to fill

out a form.– Clicked on call number link

Question 4 – Books through Summit (aka INN-Reach)

Question 4: You search for a book and the catalog says ‘Your entry would be here’, indicating that the OHSU Library does not have that book. Where would you look to see how you could request the book?

Question 4 – FindingsWhat people did on this task

Said they would assume we did not have item

Did not know we could get it for them

Assumed they had misspelled and tried again

Would check local public or university libraries or go to Amazon.com to buy book if desired

No one knew what “Summit” was

No one could find the button even if they surmised we should have this function

Question 5 – Finding full-text (WebBridge)

Few used WebBridgeSome understood the function, but not the name; some guessed from the name, but were not sure of the functionMost people never opened WebBridge initially, but opened a second window to the catalog and searched for the journal thereTested in both PubMed and OvidDid not go back after an initial bad experience with WebBridge“Not working” meant it did not provide full-text

Gaps between understanding and interface

Confusion with terminology in OPAC/on site– Users not sure which links go to where– Our terminology does not make sense to them– Library Terms Users Understand:

http://www.jkup.net/terms.html#summary Confusion with legacy information organization and terminology– Previous separation on top page of JOURNALS

vs. E-JOURNALSConfusion with layout of OPAC in generalConfusion with layout of bib records for both journals and books

Gaps between understanding and interface

Finding “good enough” if not exact article

“Getting stuff from other libraries”

Confusion/overlap about which resources and services do what– ILL, Summit, WorldCat?– Databases or ejournals?– “Want it? Get it!”

No returns after a bad experience

Used GoogleScholar

Other findings

Unexpected two-way interaction, education

Different mental models people have point to need to stay in closer touch with them more regularly

– Liaison program

– Mobile lab

– Other connections

– “What’s New” a blog (“Did you know?”)

What did we do to address findings?

Fixes on top page

Fixes within OPAC

Fixes within WebBridge screen

Follow-up testing

Enhancement requests

Tidied up wording/categories on top pageChanged buttons to be all-text (and large font)Made Request, Summit buttons (changed wording) stand out

Reduced number of buttons in that seemed cluttery to people – Suppress_Option wwwoption for MARC, Another Search– Manual page #106891

Altered briefcit.html coding (Manual page #107034 )Changed text for locationLinked location text to page explaining to use “Request” button– Used LOC_ codes in wwwoptions

LOC_h0130=javascript:open('/screens/requestinstruct.html','xpop','height= 200,width=500,screenX=300,screenY=300,top=300,left=300');location.href= location.href;"

Not ideal: when people click on the location, they want to go directly to the request form.

Enhancement request!

Made more obvious wording on WebBridge button

Introduced conditional programming– Suppressed non-desired links– Manual page #106546

Altered resserv_panel.html page and associated .css files – Manual page #106495

WebBridge Admin

Edit Category Suppression Rules

Created rule to suppressing catalog and ILL categories if one of the link to or browse article categories is available

Follow-up testing

Dec 2007-Jan 2008

6 subjects

Different recruitment tactic

Used same format and form

Things original testers cited as problems and fixed were not mentioned.

Things we were unable to change were still a problem for users.

Recommendations for futureAllow “Search as Words” link to link to another function (i.e. “Search affiliated libraries”)“Your item would be here” redesignMore faceted/grouped searching in OPAC – less layers and confusionCatalog available through top pageAdditional user education (PubMed, ILL)More liaison workMore testing of “new and improved” interfaces to confirm if changes work

Resources

ACRL eLearning class: “Introduction to Website Usability” http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlproftools/Website_Usability.cfm

Taught by Nora Dimmock, University of RochesterBreeding, Marshall. (2007). Next-Generation Library Catalogs. (Library Technology Reports: Expert Guides to Library Systems and Services, 43/4). Chicago: ALA TechSource.Krug, S. (2006). Don’t Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability (2nd ed). Berkeley, CA: New Riders Publishing.Kupersmith, John (2008). Library Terms Users Understand. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from http://www.jkup.net/terms.html

Resources

Nielsen, Jakob (2005). Summary of Usability Testing Methods. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from useit.com: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/inspection_summary.html

Nielsen, Jakob (2003). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from useit.com: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.htmlNielsen, Jakob (2000). Why You Only Need Five People to Test. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from useit.com: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html Snyder, C. (2003). Paper Prototyping: The Fast and Easy Way to Design and Refine User Interfaces. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.

ResourcesUsability.gov: Your guide to creating usable Web sites. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from http://www.usability.gov– http://www.usability.gov/methods/– http://www.usability.gov/design/prototyping.html– http://www.usability.gov/refine/learnusa.html– http://www.usability.gov/methods/contextual.html

Weinberg, David (2007). Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Wikipedia.org: Cognitive Walkthrough. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_walkthroughWikipedia.org: Comparison of Usability Evaluation Methods. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_usability_evaluation_methods

Contact Information

Laura Zeigen, MA, MLIS

Systems & Web Development Librarian

Oregon Health & Science University

503-494-0505

zeigenl@ohsu.edu

http://www.ohsu.edu/library/staff/zeigenl